get_top_gainers_losers

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Given no annotations, the description discloses the API key dependency, potential error without key, and return structure (object with arrays). It is transparent about behavior but could mention read-only nature explicitly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is reasonably concise, with a clear first sentence, separate sections for args and returns. It could be slightly more streamlined but remains efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

In the absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers purpose, authentication, fallback, return structure, and parameter semantics. It does not explicitly state default values or optionality, but overall provides adequate context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The 'Args' section explains each parameter's purpose and includes enum values for 'top_coins' but not for 'duration'. Schema coverage is 0%, so description adds meaning, but not all enum options are listed, leaving some gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool gets the biggest price movers (gainers and losers) over a time window, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'list_top_coins' by mentioning a fallback, showing differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly notes the API key requirement and fallback to 'list_top_coins' if no key is provided, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.